Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

.....the sun is the the culprit.

Finally! Some reason from a socialist!

After all, the sun IS the source of heat for our planet. Think it's cycles ~just~ might have something to do with the earth's heating/cooling cycles?

BTW, AH, do you have any idea what % of atmospheric CO2 humans are responsible for?

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Finally! Some reason from a socialist!

After all, the sun IS the source of heat for our planet. Think it's cycles ~just~ might have something to do with the earth's heating/cooling cycles?

BTW, AH, do you have any idea what % of atmospheric CO2 humans are responsible for?

Dude I know you are smarter than that, don't think that for a minute I agree with the sun explanation. Btw stop labeling people, it only serves to stereotype folks and that is not conductive to having rational arguments.

But
lets get back on topic...shall we.

In my estimation for some of the best literature about global warming I recommend the peer review papers written by the American Geophysical Union. Maybe the UN has infiltrated them too...

Adopted by Council December, 2003

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

bolding by me

Human Impacts on Climate

AGU. American Geophysical Union. Earth - Oceans - Atmosphere - Space - Planets

[Chirimoya]

NASA too, I'm sorry to say.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

Dude I know you are smarter than that, don't think that for a minute I agree with the sun explanation. Btw stop labeling people, it only serves to stereotype folks and that is not conductive to having rational arguments.

So the sun, the SOURCE of heat in our solar system, should be discounted as a source of climatic warming?

You gotta be kidding me!

You guys are funny. You want a "rational" argument...but on YOUR terms. Wanna play dueling links or something?

Nice links...for being 4+ years old. The world is getting hip to the MMGW crapola.

But AH, you didn't answer my specific question: what % of atmospheric CO2 are humans responsible for?

And what came first: changes in temperature, or changes in CO2? Which preceeds which? Hint: open a hot can of Coke, and a cold can of Coke, and tell me the results...in terms of CO2 released from solution.

[bob saunders]

No one, including our most learned scientists really know if we are in global warming as a trend, a cycle, or causing it. While it is certain that we are polluting the earth the carbon credit scam is just that, a scam. For a country to have an effect on the amount of GHG and other worse forms of pollution(most are worse) they have to use both the carrot and stick. Positive reinforcement (the carrot) always works better than the stick(negative reinforcement) So to those that innovate and create less pollution you give grants and tax breaks, those that add to the pollution you beat them with a progressively bigger stick. Of course we as individuals can make the biggest differences with personal lifestyle choices. I tend to agree with Cobraboy on this, Chris many(most) of you that subscribe to the ghg theory of global warming are quick to cast dispersions at those that don't agree with you.

[Chris]

I don't mean to cast dispersions. I meant initially to have a discussion. I've never met anyone in person or conversed seriously with anyone who believes MMGW is firstly a religion and secondly a hoax. I have conversed and shared views with people who identify with a libertarian mind-set and these were intelligent and good people, willing to share views.

To cast MMGW in the role of a religion is strange to me and even borders on the ludicrous - like a joke you know. I have not come across this viewpoint outside of North America. This is not an aspersion, it is a fact. The concept may indeed be there but I have not personally come across it. For all I know, perhaps the Japanse (example) espouse those concepts, but I don't read the language, so, I have not come across it. To call it a hoax truly stretches my imagination but I'd like to know why people think this way? I am interested in a good-natured conversation, with good-natured cut and thrust on both sides, but keeping within the guidelines of tolerance. We will not solve anything here, but we can exchange views without beating the other one around the head. It is possible you know.

And yes, Bob Saunders, I agree with the comment on carbon credits. Not sure what you mean by 'ghg'?

[CFA123]

Chris,
To answer your question.
I don't think global warming is a hoax. I believe the #'s showing an upward trend in average global temps are real & true.

I am however skeptical that human activities have a significant impact on the changes.

1.
Perhaps we can agree the earth has undergone drastic temperature fluctuations over it's life time? Globally warm temps when dinosaurs roamed the earth... Globally cooler temps when the ice age came along?

I don't believe the impact of any animal species triggered these events.

Are we to believe that now, for some reason, the earth's temperatures are "supposed" to be stable? Is that the natural state of things? If so, according to whom?

2.
I truly fear the validity of any science coming out of the entities that have a stake in the outcome. How do these people have a stake in it? It's their livelihood. Their jobs, their mortgages depend on promoting the cause. Good science should not have even the semblance of bias. But, they need to get 35 years out of this before their retirement.
Look at the results that 'scientific' studies sponsored by the tobacco industry, makers of silicon breast implants, etc, etc can turn out as an example. What motivated those researchers & their reports? Any chance similar is going on?

3.
The money. Don't discount it. Richard Branson put $3 billion dollars out there over the next 10 years to promote the cause. And that's just a drop in the overall bucket of contributions made by the believers in global warming.

4.
The media. Unfortunately most news outlets shoot for the exciting headlines and give little in depth reporting. This fuels the fire.

5.
As I believe you said in a previous post, and many if not most scientists seem to say "there is much we yet need to know about what affects climate". There have been some real doozies historically in terms of scientific theories that have proved to be worthless. No shame in that, it's the scientific process.

6.
When it comes to science, isn't it a well respected part of the scientific method to be skeptical and not be part of the flock? True scientists argue the facts. It's those of us in the general public that add emotion to it, and now always for the best. Also, I think cobraboy's right... go back and look at some of your choice of words in making indirect attacks on different groups in your posts in this thread You're as bad as we are

[Chris]

Perhaps you should refer to some of the older discussions in the weather forum, 3 years or so ago, where the global warming issue was discussed in relation to weather. At that time, and even now, the recognition is clear that the concept of mmgw in relation to storms has no good basis in science. Nevertheless, there is a pattern of change.

You see, what I think is rather simple if people hang on long enough before they shoot to not hang labels, and to hear what the other person says. We know that we have a warming phase on our hands. As a farmer's child and attuned to the earth as a food source and an asset to be protected and nurtured, I can see changes occurring. We also collectively have no experience or knowledge as to how to handle it. The science is young but is now trying to catch up. The IPCC reports in my mind, is science trying to catch up with earth changes that are already becoming clear to see.

Currently for me, there are still more questions than answers although the knowledge on what is happening on the poles is alarming. I don't know what is more alarming, that the ice is melting, or that the Governments are fighting as to who owns the seas underneath the melting ice. I do think lifestyle changes are necessary globally. For me, the earth is not a God, Al Gore is not a savior, mmgw is not a religion, and governments are screwing up more than ever. Carbon credits is a travesty.

Nevertheless, the earth is changing and these changes are beginning to show quite crazy consequences. And it seems that we're trying to shoot the messenger!

[Chris]

Cobraboy, when you first said this, I thought you were joking and forgot it straight away as I forget most jokes. But now it seems to me that you are serious. Can we just get away from your newly defined religion for the purposes of this discussion, on the basis that I don't belong to it?

I do not understand the math underlying Bernoulli’s Principle. There are however two people in the house that could explain it to me if necessary. I do simplistically understand the concept that if you have a pipe with a flowing liquid or gas, and the pipe narrows, the liquid or gas increases in speed of flow. To try and joke, to apply the principle to specifically man-made global warming, I cannot figure out where the 'pipe' is So, I cannot figure out the applicability.

Again, for me it is not a slavish adherence to the science, as I know the science is young and in many cases, not developed. For me, it is more a thing of what I see. Al Gore I think is a brave man, but I do not follow him, or anyone else slavishly for that matter.

Generally, for people who say that the media is doing crazy stuff and whipping up emotions .. I agree fully.

CFA123, I think you're summation is fine and correct for what we know and I have no disagreements with what you say.

So, I have a question .. Is there general agreement that we are seeing climate change on the planet?

If so, here is a question for those of us that are completely skeptical about man-made global warming ... in my thinking mankind and its actions is a variable that cannot be discounted. For those who say that mankind's actions is not contributing, are you not discounting a very important variable?

[bob saunders]

And yes, Bob Saunders, I agree with the comment on carbon credits. Not sure what you mean by 'ghg'?
Green House Gases, the guilty culprit, another name for those nasty carbons that are creating global warming, in many peoples eyes. A very hot topic here in Canada where most of the hot air as usually is coming from the opposition politicians, who like in most countries talk a good story but then once in power don't act. Lots of catchwords carbon sink...etc, but in the end most of us want our AC, large powerful cars and trucks, TV, Microwaves, computers, sound systems, and enough artificial sun at night to drive away the criminals. Currently Canada is taking a lot of heat at the conference in Bali for not signing our economy away in the interest of prevent global warming. In a country like the DR Conservation, alternative fuels, and co-generation should be the buzzwords. I personally don't think that we are have a positive effect on the world's atmosphere but science has not proven to me that we are causing global warming. I certainly remember Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, an grew up in a family that practised organic gardening, conservation, recycling...etc long before it became fashionable. Harrowsmith, and book by Robert Rodale were more common in our house that any other king of book. Education is the key in developing a sense of the correct processes to cut down on pollution, but the run chicken little approach is not effect. The only good thing about Algore is waking people up to the fact that we have a problem with our polluting ways.